UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

MUELLER WATER PRODUCTS, INC., and ANVIL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. VICTAULIC COMPANY, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO:

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Plaintiffs Anvil International, LLC (Anvil) and Mueller Water Products, Inc. (Mueller) (collectively Plaintiffs), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this Complaint against Defendant Victaulic Company (Victaulic), alleging as follows:

NATURE OF THE SUIT 1. This is a declaratory judgment action for patent invalidity and non-

infringement under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq., and under the United States Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq., seeking a declaration that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,131 (the '131 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,712,796 (the '796 Patent) (collectively, the patents-in-suit) are invalid and are not infringed by either Plaintiff. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Mueller is a corporation organized and existing under the

laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 1200 Abernathy Road, Atlanta, GA, 30328. 3. Plaintiff Anvil is a limited liability company organized and existing

under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 110 Corporate Drive, Suite 10, Portsmouth, NH 03801. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Victaulic is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and maintains its principal place of business at 4901 Kesslersville Road, Easton, PA 18040. Upon information and belief, Victaulic can be served through its registered agent, J. M. Trachtenberg at 4901 Kesslersville Road, Easton, PA 18040. 2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has original federal subject matter jurisdiction over this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 6. Victaulic transacts business in the State of Georgia and in this judicial

district. Specifically, Victaulic offers for sale and sells its products in this judicial district. Accordingly, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Victaulic. 7. 1400(b). BACKGROUND FACTS Anvil and Its SlideLOK Coupling 8. Anvil is wholly owned by Mueller, which is a leading provider of Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and

services and products in the water infrastructure industry. 9. For more than 150 years, Anvil has been in the business of providing

expertise, product solutions, and design services for a wide range of applications, from plumbing and mechanical, HVAC, industrial and fire protection to companies in the mining and oil and gas industries. Anvil is one of the largest and most comprehensive manufacturers of pipe fittings, pipe hangers, and piping support systems in the world.

10.

On September 24, 2012, Anvil unveiled its newest rigid pipe

coupling, the SlideLOK coupling, at the MINExpo INTERNATIONAL 2012 trade show (MINExpo) in Las Vegas. The SlideLOK coupling joins two pipe

segments together by forming a water-tight seal at the connection of the ends of two pipe segments. The SlideLOK coupling is a ready-for-installation coupling that allows for fast, easy, and safe installation. See Declaration of Phillip Michael Schechinger 5-6, attached hereto as Exhibit A (Schechinger Dec); and Declaration of Justin Soren Done 5-6, attached hereto as Exhibit B (Done Dec). 11. To install the SlideLOK coupling, an installer simply lubricates the

exposed gasket surfaces and slides the coupling completely over the pipe end of one pipe, where it securely remains until the installer positions, in an end-to-end configuration, a second pipe segment and slides the self-centering coupling into place. When properly positioned, the SlideLOK coupling is positioned around the end of both pipes. The installer then uses an impact or socket wrench to tighten two bolts, securing the coupling segments around the gasket. In this way, a watertight seal is created, thereby joining the two pipe segments. 12. The SlideLOK coupling features a patent-pending, pressure-

responsive gasket with four separate sealing contacts that engage the groove 360 4

degrees around the pipe. A specially developed leading edge eliminates gasket pinching, and the gasket lips facilitate easy slide action. The pressure-responsive gasket uses technology unique to the industry and only available with the SlideLOK couplings. Victaulic and Its Patents 13. According to its website, Victaulic is also a market participant in As such, Victaulic

grooved and plain-end mechanical pipe joining systems. competes with Anvil for business. 14.

Upon information and belief, Victaulic purports to own intellectual

property rights, including several patents, relating to grooved and plain-end mechanical pipe joining systems. 15. Specifically, Victaulic purports to own two patents, each described

more fully below, which are both directed to deformable mechanical pipe couplings. Victaulics '131 Patent 16. U.S. Patent No. 7,086,131 (the 131 Patent) is entitled Deformable

Mechanical Pipe Coupling. A true and correct copy of the '131 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The '131 Patent issued on August 8, 2006.

17.

Upon information and belief, the '131 Patent was duly assigned to

Victaulic, effective July 27, 2005. Victaulic claims to be the current owner of all rights, title, and interest in and under the '131 Patent. 18. The '131 Patent relates in general to a deformable mechanical pipe

coupling and more particularly to interconnectable pipe coupling segments for joining facing end portions of a pair of pipe elements. 19. As discussed more fully below, the '131 Patent is currently

undergoing inter partes reexamination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under 35 U.S.C. 311 and 37 C.F.R. 1.913 and 1.915. Victaulics '796 Patent 20. U.S. Patent No. 7,712,796 (the 796 Patent) is entitled Deformable

Mechanical Pipe Coupling. A true and correct copy of the '796 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The '796 Patent issued on May 11, 2010. 21. The application resulting in the 796 Patent is a divisional of the

application resulting in the 131 Patent.

22.

On information and belief, the '796 Patent was duly assigned to

Victaulic, effective at least as early as November 11, 20081. Victaulic claims to be the current owner of all rights, title, and interest in and under the '796 Patent. 23. The '796 Patent relates in general to a deformable mechanical pipe

coupling and more particularly to interconnectable pipe coupling segments for joining facing end portions of a pair of pipe elements. 24. As discussed more fully below, numerous claims of the '796 Patent

are currently undergoing inter partes reexamination at the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. 311 and 37 C.F.R. 1.913 and 1.915. Additional claims of the '796 Patent are currently undergoing ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 302307 and 37 C.F.R. 1.510.2 Victaulics History of Litigiousness 25. Victaulic is not hesitant to enforce its legal rights, including its

intellectual property rights.

Upon information and belief, the inventors of the 796 patent allegedly executed their respective assignment documents transferring their rights to Victaulic between November 6, 2008, and November 12, 2008. 2 A request for ex parte reexamination was filed on September 14, 2012, and is pending review by the USPTO. 7

26.

Since 1987, Victaulic (including its predecessor Victaulic Company

America) has filed at least six (6) lawsuits alleging patent or copyright infringement, and has filed a patent infringement suit as recently as March 27, 2012. See Victaulic Co. v. Yong Won E.N.C., Ltd., 1:12-cv-10555-DPW (D. Mass. 2012); Victaulic Co. v. Yong Won E.N.C., Ltd., 2:10-cv-05009-FSH-PS (D.N.J. 2010); Victaulic Co. v. Central Sprinkler Co., 2:96-cv-03213-RG (E.D. Pa. 1996); Victaulic Co. v. Quickcoup, Inc., 2:92-cv-71920-LPZ-PJK (E.D. Mich. 1992); Victaulic Co. v. Urdan Ind. Ltd., 2:88-cv-72192-RED (E.D. Mich. 1988); and Victaulic Co. v. Urdan Ind. Ltd., 2:87-cv-72589-RED (E.D. Mich. 1987). Victaulics History of Suing Anvil 27. In addition to its vigorous enforcement of its intellectual property

rights against others, Victaulic also has previously initiated litigation specifically against Anvil. 28. Victaulic sued Anvil in 2009 seeking to prevent a former Victaulic

employee, Stephen Scott, from disclosing critical Victaulic trade secrets to his new employer, Anvil . . . . Victaulic Co. v. Stephen Scott, 5-09-cv-00195-LS (E.D. Pa. 2009), Complaint 1. See also Affidavit of Lawrence W. Thau, from the inter partes reexamination of the 131 Patent, the relevant portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit E, in which Victaulic argues that the hiring of Mr. Scott 8

provided evidence that the patented design was being copied. Victaulic alleged that Mr. Scott had knowledge of certain Victaulic proprietary designs. Id. at 22. Victaulic further asserted in its Complaint that it was concerned that Mr. Scott would disclose its proprietary information to Anvil. 29. Mr. Scott was eventually enjoined from working on any coupling-

related projects at Anvil for a period of twelve (12) months ending in December 2009. Reexamination of the Patents-in-Suit 30. While developing its new SlideLOK coupling, Anvil performed due

diligence, including evaluating patents in the field of deformable pipe couplings. In that process, Anvil identified the patents-in-suit and determined that both the '131 Patent and the '796 Patent were invalid in light of prior art that Anvil identified that had not been previously reviewed by the USPTO or had not been reviewed in the proper context. 31. As part of its due diligence, Anvil filed reexamination requests asking

the USPTO to reexamine the '131 Patent and the '796 Patent and to determine that the patents are invalid. In those requests, Anvil indicates that it is the real party in interest and that it is wholly owned by Mueller.

32.

On January 27, 2012, Anvil filed an inter partes reexamination

request asking the USPTO to reexamine the only claim of the '131 Patent. 33. In response, on February 17, 2012, the USPTO granted the request for

reexamination, and the '131 Patent is currently undergoing inter partes reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 311 and 37 C.F.R. 1.913 and 1.915. That reexamination proceeding has been assigned control number 95/001,878 by the USPTO. 34. The USPTO has indicated that the request for inter partes

reexamination has made a reasonable likelihood of prevailing (RLP) showing that claim 1 of United States Patent No. 7,086,131 is unpatentable. See Decision On Request For Inter Partes Reexamination mailed February 17, 2012, page 2.3 35. As such, claim 1 of the '131 Patent currently stands rejected under 35

U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 as unpatentable. See Office Action In Inter Partes Reexamination mailed February 17, 2012, pages 35.

All reexamination proceedings and documents relating thereto are publicly available through the USPTOs Patent Application Information Retrieval system. As such, and for purposes of brevity and conciseness, copies of documents relied on herein stemming from the reexamination proceedings are not reproduced herein or attached as exhibits. 10

36.

On February 1, 2012, Anvil filed an inter partes reexamination

request asking the USPTO to reexamine all claims of the '796 Patent. 37. The USPTO has indicated that the request for inter partes

reexamination has made a reasonable likelihood of prevailing (RLP) showing that claims 1, 2, 412, 1416, 1822, 2428, 3034, 38, 41 and 4345 (the First Claims) of United States Patent No. 7,712,796 are unpatentable. See Decision On Request For Inter Partes Reexamination mailed February 27, 2012, page 2. The resulting reexamination proceeding has been assigned control number 95/001,880 by the USPTO. However, the USPTO denied inter partes reexamination of claims 3, 13, 17, 23, 29, 3537, 39, 40, and 42 (the Second Claims). 38. On September 14, 2012, Anvil filed an ex parte reexamination request

asking the USPTO to reexamine the Second Claims. While the USPTO has not yet granted the reexamination request, Anvil strongly believes that the USPTO will do so. That reexamination proceeding has been assigned control number 90/012,656 by the USPTO. 39. Anvil alleged in the three reexamination requests that myriad prior art

references invalidated the two patents under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103. A full list of those references, as well as Anvils arguments regarding the applicability of

11

the references to the claims of the '131 Patent and the '796 Patent, can be found through the USPTOs website. 40. Victaulic has opposed Anvils position throughout the two inter

partes reexaminations, and Plaintiffs expect that Victaulic will do so in the ex parte reexamination as well. 41. As evident from the reexaminations, Anvil and Victaulic disagree

over the validity of the '131 Patent and the '796 Patent. Victaulics Actions at MINExpo 42. From September 24, 2012, until September 26, 2012, representatives

of Anvil attended MINExpo in Las Vegas, Nevada. Representatives of Anvil attending MINExpo included Brandon Gunnell, Phillip Schechinger, and Justin Done. Schechinger Dec 5-6 and Done Dec 5-6. 43. According to its website (www.minexpo.com), MINExpo is the

Worlds largest mining show at which more than 1,800 exhibitors display the latest technology, equipment, components, parts, and services for exploration, extraction, safety, environmental remediation and preparation and processing of metallic ores, coal, and industrial minerals. 44. Anvil launched its new SlideLOK coupling product at MINExpo. At

its booth, Anvil provided the SlideLOK coupling to potential customers for 12

viewing and inspection. A brochure about the SlideLOK coupling was also available. The brochure contained pictures and descriptions of the SlideLOK coupling. These pictures and descriptions illustrate and explain how the coupling works and how to install the coupling. A true and correct copy of the brochure is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Anvil also performed demonstrations of the

installation and use of the SlideLOK coupling. Id. 45. On September 25, 2012, two men approached the Anvil booth at

MINExpo wearing shirts embroidered with Victaulic logos and displaying Victaulic nametags. The men said they were marketing guys for Victaulic. Schechinger Dec 8. 46. The men asked if an Anvil product on display was the new SlideLOK

coupling. The men picked up an available brochure and walked away with the brochure attached hereto as Exhibit F. Id. at 9. 47. On September 26, 2012, four representatives of Victaulic, including

Scott Sargent, a Victaulic product manager, approached representatives of Anvil at the Anvil booth at MINExpo. Schechinger Dec 8 and Done Dec 11. 48. Representatives of Victaulic, including Scott Sargent, specifically

asked the Anvil representatives technical questions about the SlideLOK coupling, inquiring in particular about the installation and use of the SlideLOK coupling. Id. 13

49.

Scott Sargent also inspected and disassembled the SlideLOK coupling

to view the inner workings of the product. Id. 50. After inspecting the SlideLOK coupling, Scott Sargent threatened

Anvil representatives that Anvil would be prevented from selling the SlideLOK coupling in the near future. Anvils representatives understood from this statement that Victaulic was planning to take legal action against Anvil. Id. 51. Before leaving the Anvil booth, Scott Sargent took several copies of

the SlideLOK coupling brochure, which was the same brochure attached hereto as Exhibit F. 52. Victaulics threatening words and prying behavior at MINExpo, along

with Victaulics history of filing lawsuits to protect its intellectual property, its history of suing Anvil, and the ongoing dispute between Anvil and Victaulic over the invalidity of Victaulics patents in the reexamination proceedings discussed above, made Anvil reasonably believe that a substantial controversy existed between it and Victaulic. Specifically, Anvil believed that it and its new SlideLOK coupling were likely to be the targets of a lawsuit by Victaulic for patent infringement of the '131 Patent and the '796 Patent.

14

Victaulics Letter to Anvil and Mueller 53. Following MINExpo, on September 28, 2012, Victaulic sent a letter to

Anvil and Mueller asserting its patent portfolio in relation to Anvils SlideLOK product. A true copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit G. 54. In its letter to Anvil, Victaulic, through counsel, requested three

samples of the SlideLOK coupling be sent to [Victaulic] for evaluation vis-a-vis Victaulics patent portfolio. Even though Victaulic inspected the SlideLOK

coupling at MINExpo, it nevertheless requested samples of the coupling. Moreover, Victaulic already had copies of a brochure describing and depicting the SlideLOK coupling. 55. Victaulic acknowledged the ongoing controversy between Anvil and

Victaulic, stating: In fact, as I am sure you know, Anvil has requested that the Patent Office reexamine a couple of those patents. 56. Thus, based on this letter, in conjunction with Victaulics history of

litigiousness, with an emphasis on Victaulics history of suing Anvil, the pending reexaminations, and the other activities outlined above, Plaintiffs are reasonably apprehensive that Victaulic will attempt to enforce its patent rights in court against them.

15

COUNT I Declaration of Muellers Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,131 57. The allegations of paragraphs 156 above are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 58. A substantial controversy regarding non-infringement of the '131

Patent exists between Mueller and Victaulic, which have adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 59. 60. Mueller has not infringed and does not infringe the '131 Patent. Nonetheless, Mueller has a reasonable apprehension of being sued by

Victaulic for infringement of the 131 Patent, based on Victaulics activities described above, including the letter it sent to Mueller on September 28, 2012. 61. A judgment declaring that Mueller does not infringe the '131 Patent

would finalize the controversy between the parties and offer them relief from uncertainty 62. Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.,

Mueller is therefore entitled to a declaration that it does not infringe the '131 Patent. 63. In light of the existing controversy, Mueller will be damaged in the

absence of such a declaration. 16

COUNT II Declaration of Muellers Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,712,796 64. The allegations of paragraphs 163 above are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 65. A substantial controversy regarding non-infringement of the '796

Patent exists between Mueller and Victaulic, which have adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 66. 67. Mueller has not infringed and does not infringe the '796 Patent. Nonetheless, Mueller has a reasonable apprehension of being sued by

Victaulic for infringement of the 796 Patent, based on Victaulics activities described above, including the letter it sent to Mueller on September 28, 2012. 68. A judgment declaring that Mueller does not infringe the '796 Patent

would finalize the controversy between the parties and offer them relief from uncertainty. 69. Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.,

Mueller is therefore entitled to a declaration that it does not infringe the '796 Patent. 70. In light of the existing controversy, Mueller will be damaged in the

absence of such a declaration. 17

COUNT III Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,131 71. The allegations of paragraphs 170 above are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 72. Claim 1 (the only claim) of the '131 Patent is invalid because it fails to

satisfy one or more of the requirements of patentability set forth in the U.S. Patent Act, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 73. Because all of the allegedly patentable limitations of claim 1 of the

'131 Patent are disclosed in the prior art, claim 1 is anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the prior art and is therefore invalid. 74. The anticipation and obviousness of claim 1 of the '131 Patent are

further evidenced by the presently pending reexamination proceeding before the USPTO. 75. Anvil and Mueller have suffered an injury in fact which is concrete,

particularized, and actual or imminent. 76. Anvil has undertaken meaningful preparation to manufacture, offer

for sale, and sell its SlideLOK coupling.

18

77.

A substantial controversy as to the invalidity of the '131 Patent exists

between Plaintiffs and Victaulic, which have adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 78. A judgment declaring that the '131 Patent is invalid would finalize the

controversy between the parties and offer them relief from uncertainty. 79. Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.,

Anvil and Mueller are therefore entitled to a declaration that claim 1 of the '131 Patent is invalid. 80. In light of the existing controversy, Anvil and Mueller will be

damaged in the absence of such a declaration. COUNT IV Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,712,796 81. The allegations of paragraphs 180 above are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 82. On information and belief, the claims of the '796 Patent are invalid

because they fail to satisfy one or more of the requirements of patentability set forth in the U.S. Patent Act, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.

19

83.

Because all of the allegedly patentable limitations of, for instance,

claim 1 of the '796 Patent are disclosed in the prior art, claim 1 is anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the prior art and is therefore invalid. 84. The remaining claims of the '796 patent are likewise anticipated

and/or rendered obvious by the prior art and are also invalid. 85. The anticipation and obviousness of the claims of the '796 Patent are

further evidenced by the presently pending reexamination proceedings before the USPTO. 86. Anvil and Mueller have suffered an injury in fact which is concrete,

particularized, and actual or imminent. 87. Anvil has undertaken meaningful preparation to manufacture, offer

for sale, and sell its SlideLOK coupling. 88. A substantial controversy as to the invalidity of the '796 Patent exists

between Plaintiffs and Victaulic, which have adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 89. A judgment declaring that the '796 Patent is invalid would finalize the

controversy between the parties and offer them relief from uncertainty.

20

90.

Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.,

Anvil and Mueller are therefore entitled to a declaration that the claims of the '796 Patent are invalid. 91. In light of the existing controversy, Anvil and Mueller will be

damaged in the absence of such a declaration. COUNT V Declaration of Anvils Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,131 92. The allegations of paragraphs 191 above are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 93. A substantial controversy as to the non-infringement of the '131 Patent

exists between Anvil and Victaulic, which have adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 94. 95. Anvil does not infringe claim 1 (the only claim) of the 131 Patent. Anvil has undertaken meaningful preparation to manufacture, offer

for sale, and sell its SlideLOK coupling. 96. A judgment declaring that the '131 Patent is not infringed by Anvil

would finalize the controversy between the parties and offer them relief from uncertainty.

21

97.

Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.,

Anvil is therefore entitled to a declaration that the claim of the '131 Patent is not infringed. 98. In light of the existing controversy, Anvil will be damaged in the

absence of such a declaration. COUNT VI Declaration of Anvils Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,712,796 99. The allegations of paragraphs 198 above are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 100. A substantial controversy as to the non-infringement of the '796 Patent exists between Anvil and Victaulic, which have adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 101. Anvil does not infringe the 796 Patent. 102. Anvil has undertaken meaningful preparation to manufacture, offer for sale, and sell its SlideLOK coupling. 103. A judgment declaring that the '796 Patent is not infringed by Anvil would finalize the controversy between the parties and offer them relief from uncertainty.

22

104. Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq., Anvil is therefore entitled to a declaration that the claim of the '796 Patent is not infringed. 105. In light of the existing controversy, Anvil will be damaged in the absence of such a declaration. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 106. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: (a) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, a Judgment that the claim of the '131 Patent is invalid; (b) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, a Judgment that the claims of the '796 Patent are invalid; (c) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, a Judgment that Plaintiffs have not infringed the 131 Patent or the 796 Patent; and (d) Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

23

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 107. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by right of jury.

This 3rd day of October, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeffrey R. Kuester__________________ Jeffrey R. Kuester jkuester@taylorenglish.com Georgia Bar No. 429960 Todd E. Jones tjones@taylorenglish.com Georgia Bar No. 403925 Amanda G. Hyland ahyland@taylorenglish.com Georgia Bar No. 325115 Seth K. Trimble strimble@taylorenglish.com Georgia Bar No. 851055 TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP 1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Phone: (770) 434-6868 Facsimile: (770) 434-7376 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mueller Water Products, Inc. and Anvil International, LLC 24

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that the foregoing pleading was prepared using Times New Roman, 14-point, and otherwise conforms to the requirements of Local Rule 5.1.

This 3rd day of October, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeffrey R. Kuester_________________ Jeffrey R. Kuester Jkuester@taylorenglish.com Georgia Bar No. 429960 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mueller Water Products, Inc. and Anvil International, LLC

25